Pages

Wednesday, 1 November 2017

Duchess Kate Hosts Roundtable Discussion on Maternal Mental Health!

Earlier today, the Duchess of Cambridge hosted a roundtable discussion on maternal mental health at Kensington Palace with The Royal Foundation. The Palace shared one photograph from the meeting.

The Palace shared the following information on the discussion: "The Duchess is keen to develop an understanding of the issues surrounding maternal mental health, and to learn what support is available. At least 20% of women are affected by mental health problems during pregnancy or in the first year following the birth of a child. If left untreated, maternal mental health problems can have significant and long lasting effect on the woman and her family. The Duchess has spoken about the importance of having open conversations about maternal health, and the impact this can have on family."

Kate was joined by experts from the Anna Freud Centre, Best Beginnings, Family Action, King's College London and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Kate's new private secretary Catherine Quinn was also present.

In early March, the Duchess attended the launch of maternal mental health films with Heads Together charity partner Best Beginnings at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in London. Drawing on her own experiences as a mother, the Duchess admitted to a lack of confidence and feelings of ignorance as a mother. "It is full of complex emotions of joy, exhaustion, love, and worry, all mixed together. Your fundamental identity changes overnight. You go from thinking of yourself as primarily an individual, to suddenly being a mother, first and foremost."

'Moschino's playful sister label Boutique displays the same sense of fun as the main line. Expect brooches and ruffles on quirky tweed jackets, coquettish day dresses in uplifting palettes and tongue-in-cheek takes on classic ladylike bags.'

It's a new label for Kate, I would love to see what she paired it with.

************

The Palace just announced another engagement for Kate continuing with today's theme of maternal mental health. The Duchess of Cambridge will visit the Hornsey Road Children's Centre in London on Tuesday, 14th November. The Duchess will see some of the valuable family and parental support services which are delivered at the Centre, including those offered by the charity Family Action, of which the Queen is patron. The Hornsey Road Children's Centre offers a welcoming environment for expectant and new mothers, and an outlet for children to play. It provides vital care and mental health support to parents, as well as offering antenatal and postnatal services, a nursery, play groups, and family support services. You might recall Kate was due to visit the centre in early September, but had to cancel due to hyperemesis gravidarum. I posted a graphic showing Kate's November schedule yesterday, here's another look for those who may have missed it.

173 comments:

Perfect! I like that they are publicizing these roundtable engagements that they do at the office. Good for the general public view :) And these causes are perfect to have her as a mother (and now pregnant) at the helm! Very nice to see that she now seem to be back at a seemingy normal scheduel, at least locally!

Also happy to see her wear this brand. They have some hilarious and fun pieces (that would NEVER work in her wardrobe), but this one works nicely within more conventional styles and must also work well with a burgeoning belly!

I was thinking exactly the same thing. The purpose of these round tables and board meetings are not publicity, but there is no harm in publishing a picture of it. No matter how many times you say that they do more than just the public engagements, as long as the only pictures, of Kate especially, is of shaking hands and cutting ribbons, nobody is convinced.

I admire and respect and so enjoy the Queen and Prince Phillip. And I am so amazed to see William, Kate and Harry so fundamentally and creatively involved in charities. I don't know that the Queen was/is to that extent per se, although Prince Phillip, in carving out a role for himself was quite creative, innovative and involved in projects he created. Most of my memories of the Queen's involvement in many of her charities was showing up, waving and unveiling a plaque. A lot of influence there but no apparent interaction beyond that as a rule. That was the social more' of the day, but things have changed. So kudos to the trio. They are being very aggressive really and proactive about it, not unlike a little military strategizing. The Queen of course was fundamental with Prince Phillip in birthing the Commonwealth to what it is today. A project that the Queen and her father had started if I remember correctly. She is an amazing lady. I do find it amazing also that the trio is forging forth with the focus and seriousness that they are. The Queen and Prince Phillip must be relieved and happy about their younger generation helping to steer the monarchy into a dynamic and modern grassroots force of help, even if it might make them a little nervous at first. :)

Yes!! To all of this. I do admire and respect the Queen but you are right, she takes more of a ceremonial, figurehead role. Which is her duty but it's more interesting(to me anyways) to see the younger generations(and Charles too) taking a more hands on approach.

I agree with your comments SG--but remember that the Queen has had to be the constitutional head of the government. So she couldn't really get so personally involved with all of those charities as W, H & K can now. Charles has been very involved with his Princes Trust and his Highgrove endeavors but I don't think he has ventured on a one-to-one quite as much as his sons & daughter-in-law are doing. That could be because of his proximity to the crown.

I wonder very much whether Catherine Quinn is networking with charities and mentoring Kate as to the best way to interact with them. From her c.v. she is very savvy about that.

Harry actually talked about this yesterday during his Q&A at the Obama Summit. Like all of us, he expressed admiration for how many charities the Queen and other members of the Royal Family have worked with in the past. But he said the most important aspect of charity work is the impact, and said he, William, and Kate believe they can have more impact by being deeply involved with a smaller number of charities than saying yes to every charity that asks and having little time to engage with those charities.

I think it's really nice that the three of them are all carving out one or two areas of particular interest and devoting particular focus to those areas.

So this is going to be a very long-multi post comment bc of word limits and I apologize (esp bc I know I get confusing/ranty but I'm so sleepy right now I can't make it shorter :P), but note it's not criticism (or not meant to be), but rather the hope of engaging in an intellectual discussion that I find both incredibly interesting and important. So I'm going to start with the caveat that while a lot of the individual things I'm saying are things I have some basis in knowing to be true, the same cannot necessarily be said in how I'm choosing to put them all together in the big picture so it's entirely possible I'm seeing it wrong. So not trying to say I'm completely attached to my position - I want to engage :)

So now, here's why I think they are maybe not right about being able to do more good with their way. ....how does it actually help to personally invest so much of their own time and creativity in specific projects? They are not experts in any of these things, but luckily they are able to quickly convene people who are, like everyone else at this roundtable for ex. And a major reason round tables like this are good, or why Heads Together served a purpose that its constituent organizations did not cover in the sum of all their work, is from the huge benefits of collaboration. But it's hard for indiv orgs to just come together cohesively without an external factor/influence and/or governance.....for one, bc it's just hard to develop a decision-making tree/model that all the diff actors will agree to when they are negotiating amongst themselves without the help of some external guidance/management. Lots of other things too but in the same general trend of it being hard to feel it's worth the investment of resources/time/image to try and do something more comprehensive and big and thus more daunting. So what if Kate played a more Queen-esque role where she didn't dive in so deep, but instead used the special influence/power she has b/c of her title to generate momentum for trying to address a big problem, for ex. by initiating something like a round table to be convened? And then she delegates the actual specific problem-solving needed for that group for it's specific issue area to the experts, instead of spending her time (and their time!) on trying to understand and learn more all the different things relevant to the project. Bc the specifics are not how she can help the most. She can do more good by committing the prestige of her patronage to it..maybe also lending some Foundation staff or even her private secretary who all have experience running charities and such to help the organizations with more general things like marketing that aren't so specific to the actual issue. And then when it makes sense, Kate herself comes sometimes to maybe fundraising events, or to acknowledge particular dedication and awards while giving a speech...to help with fundraising and attention. //Part 1 ends here :P

Part 2/2: The fact is, none of the royals are experts on 99% of the things they do charity work in. The experts in this roundtable for ex should be able to come up with how to approach a big problem, or w/e the goal is, without needing help specifically for that from the royals. Foundation staff help could be useful, yes, but the royals don't have degrees or real training at this point to serve a truly helpful role in this area. So to get personally involved like they want to, it seems like they would have to first initially slow down the whole process by needing to become educated themselves before any of the actual tough discussions about what they are trying to do and how to do it can even begin. And, whatever they can learn would still be less in depth or just in amount compared to experts and leaders of orgs like this. So even after a royal finds ways to learn more about the area, the chances that it would be enough to mean that now they could make a truly unique, significant contribution that the experts could not, is very slim. So after first slowing it down, I don't even see how there is then some benefit generated that makes up for that initial slowing. Not to mention that instead of limiting your personal interactions with the organizations to things like public events where she can bring the project lots of attention and/or money at once, now a lot of that time will be spent on her helping plan and figure out how what the project will be instead, which is problematic bc there are very few people in the world who can replace a royal in terms of image and corresponding power to bring a lot of public attention and money just by showing up, whereas there are experts - leaders of organizations in the specific area - who are obviously easily capable of filling in if the trio chooses not to dig so deep and get into all the nitty gritty of something like mental health. So simple cost benefit analysis seems to indicate, to me at least, that the Queen and PoW's way makes much more sense in terms of amount of impact caused personally. This becomes even more true if you consider that it's not just that there is a significant tradeoff that applies to the trio's approach but not vice versa to the older royals based in losing the unique contribution only royals and few others can bring through name recognition....it's also that as they have said, it's the digging deep that makes them focus on much, much fewer projects and organizations to support, so not only does doing it the Queen's way probably actually help each individual project more than their way, but the Queen's way then also covers soooooo many more issues that are all important.

Also, this is kind of unrelated to my main arfgyment above but kind of a fundamental reason I have an issue with Kate and William's approach is that as future monarch and consort, they will symbolically represent the entire nation. So like a CEO of a tech product firm, they aren't doing the most important part of their role or serving its purpose if they pick and focus so much - like the CEO spending their time for 4 yrs only focusing on the marketing aspect of the company and ignoring everything else like research, product development, etc. ESP when the monarchy is being dramatically slimmed down. If it weren't, I'd say maybe royals like Harry, Meghan, Charlotte, etc. could focus more, but not the King and Queen Consort imo.

I remember back in the day that Charles was VERY busy after he had created the Prince´s Trust visiting places where the money was spent, PERSONALLY, all over the country, because he wanted to make sure that the money went to where and how it was supposed to be. Over the years, he took over more and more other projects, so he was less visible "on site" regarding the Prince´s Trust. I agree, though, HM in her role as "No. 1", had to take a different, less "hands on" approach... That´s why the "younger generation" is so important, IMO, as their role allows this "hands on" approach and they still have time to concentrate more on selected subjects....

I agree with everything you all have said! I do think Ms. Quinn will bring more of what Kate is doing behind the scenes to the fore! She seems quite savvy that way! Moving in a very positive direction! :) Becca USA

MaggieYou raise some interesting points. I have to admit that I am also not convinced by their argument of being more involved with less charities. But neither am I convinced by the Queen being patron of charities that she hasn’t visited in years. But I want to add two things. Heads Together showed that having a lot of engagements around the same topic start to have a snowball effect, which increases the effectiveness. However by the end they were dancing on a fine line of pushing their agenda successfully and creating fatigue. Secondly I think one thing W&K are doing very well is playing the long game. They are going to do this royal thing for years to come. And they don’t have to approach it in the same way for the whole time. As POW their role will be different and so when they are King and Queen. This phase is the one where they can push their personal interests. As they get closer to the crown they will have to represent the country more and themselves less.

I think there is a balance to be struck. For the public view, the general knowledge of the royals and all those things them being involved is important. Them having a passion and a drive for a project both gives it a resonance with the public but also gives the royal a sense of purpose within their role that in the big picture makes them better royals. On the other hand, them meeting people across the country during the more "boring" traditional stuff is also extremely important. And the events that many deem as glitzy and frivolous is actually the ones that benefit the charities the most. While Kate visiting a hospice might brighten up a day for people (which is very important), the impact Kate can make money wise by showing up in a gown and smoozing is something the royals is in an individual position to do. I think the old style royal work doesn't resonate with the general public very much, but it should not be discounted. It is a hard thing to find a correct balance and there is no right or perfect answer. But in general there needs to be a functioning balance.

And also a thought. Like a CEO, while they have to have a big focus and and all around feel around, they often DO have different focuses during different times in a company. Especially during a start up. While getting a team/new location/new product up and running they usually have a bigger focus and more meetings with that side while the projects that are up and running smoothly tend to go on a more routine schedule. So I think that 10 years from now stuff might even out a bit more.

Yes. Launches are important, and, like babies, need a lot of tending. As time progresses the charities will grow into their own, stronger and more mature and self-sufficient. (The same is true for new products in the commercial realm.) :)

I replied above before seeing your posts Maggie. I am of the opinion that in the context of playing The Long Game, they are doing a very noble job of Quality vs Quantity. I don't see them as trying to become experts or practitioners in any certain field, but rather being conduits, bringing together changes that will continue forward as they move up into their next 2 jobs as P&P of Wales & Ultimately K&Q. As Queen of the South said so well, the closer they get to their ultimate other positions, the more they will not have the ability to dive deep as they can now. I think they are using these years wisely & effectively.

Side note. I was astonished at the history of and current status of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese box mixes. The simple ones. That product has been around since the 30's and generates enough revenue yearly to fund a small nation. Astonishing. I used to carry the article with me just to remind me to think big, lol. The article was from Business Weekly or something years ago. I finally let the article go as it had gotten a little rag tag. But the knowledge and astonishment are still with me. So, these grassroot efforts by the trio have the potential to become pillars in the world of charity. "Do not despise the day of small beginnings" rings so true to me. :)

Maggie I'll chime in. You can only raise money from people with money. Convening a panel like this surrounds Kate with those people who are experts in their field and are responsible for providing services to the community. They discuss what they need in terms of financing to provide those services. Pregnant Kate goes to a shooting party in Sandringham with the Duke of Westminster and says "Hugh, darling, I had a lovely meeting with folks at Anna Freud Center and they need 2 million to provide maternal mental health services to the community, is there any way you can help?" And that fella worth 13 billion writes a check. That's how it works. Here's a photo proving Kate attended a meeting with smart people in their field of expertise forever to be called up on the internet. That's good PR in the internet age. So this project she's working on affects domestic affairs in her home country. She will eventually need to do this on an international level. See Queen Elizabeth and King George asking Roosevelt for help/resources in WWII.

What is interesting is what is the best way for the royal family to survive in a Brexit climate? Should they be strengthening their domestic reputation to ensure they survive a vote on the monarchy? Or should they be strengthening the country's ties to other countries to ensure resources from trade for the people? (Think gas - the UK does not have its own supply of gas).

Allegraflora, I had that exact same thought. In fact, I am wondering what would go with this top besides leggings, skinnies, etc. A skirt would look matronly unless it is very short. What say ye, fashionistas?

I think an above the knee pencil skirt with opaque black stockings and black booties/shooties would look great. That's what I'm secretly wishing she has on. Also, I think, black cigarette trousers would work well.

I love seeing another aspect of the Duchess's working life. So much if her time is devoted to preparations for public events and smaller, less public meetings. And then of course, we can see how her working wardrobe differs in these settings.

just us. Ms. Q's influence? OR perhaps Kate's team has been reading DKB and has taken our yearning to have "behind the scenes" mechanisms of their work put on record and made public. It would not surprise me. I hope it continues. :)

Agree that it's important to see women discussing women's health, but I have to respectfully disagree with Rebecca-men in medicine make valuable contributions to women's health too. Just as we make contributions to men's health. Is about the brain power not just the gender!

Kate - the difference is that men usually have plenty of say and power no matter what the issue is. Women don't, even when it's an issue that affects them. Why even defend men's value for something? All of society has clearly always accepted the value even when undeserved. I agree with the rest - love seeing so many women at the table :)

I am very pleased that the Duchess of Cambridge is interested in making a positive impact in ways that build and nourish the Family. From day 1 her focus has been on children and family life; nothing wrong with that. Thanks, Charlotte.

Although I love seeing them focused on such an important issue, I do wish Kate's schedule was more balanced between all her patronages. I mean for every engagement at the museum of natural history, there are 10 mental health engagement. I understand that it holds more importance and larger so there's a lot more ground to cover. but I'd like to see more of a balance I guess. Cute top though!

Kate looks so WELL. I am so relieved. I know how rough three pregnancies with HG can be on a body. Even after the active vomiting is over. In fact, she looks much better with the added weight than she does in the other picture posted in the post. She looked so drawn there. It is nice to see her look so healthy and well.

I love that she is focusing on this topic partially because she has experience with this and partially because it is such a needed discussion.

Everyone refers to the Royal Trio as the younger generation, but actually they are gaining on middle age, makes me wonder who will fill their shoes because there is quite a while before George and Charlotte are ready. I really do not consider them the younger generation, I would more say that Phillip and Sophie’s children are the younger generation, and to think of, there’s no one around 20ish to step up is there?

Yes and Lady Louise seems to carry herself with such maturity for her age. I was hoping that the York sisters would take over some of the Queens charities. I am still hoping that someone from the royal family will step to support classical music for the young, but the royal family seems sorely lacking in the music department, it is quite overlooked and such a shame really.

QOTS-I completely agree that Lady Louise would be a perfect fit. I never quite understood if it was the York girls that wanted to be full time royals or if Andrew wanted the girls to enjoy the full princess role. In reality, they could take on a more patronages even though they work. I think they only have a few each.

Plus, a pared down monarchy can't be just D/D Cornwell, the Cambridges and Harry. There are currently 15(?) full time/active royals. At some point in the next 15-20 years, most will be gone. Practically, they have to pick up 1-3 other people like the Kents who will help with patronages and engagements. I think Louise (and Eugenie) would be great additions.

W/K/H *are* the younger generation if you consider that the Queen is 91 and Charles will be 69 later this month.

And no offence to Lady Louise, but I don't believe she would be capable of "carrying" a generation of royals. In good time, she may have the work ethic and dedication, but I don't see the appeal factor.

I actually think more young royals would be beneficial - there is a serious lack there. It's too late for Beatrice and Eugenie but I do think Lady Louise could fill what will unquestionably be a gap and since her mother is more respected, there is a possibility for her to play a royal role.

I think Charles view of a streamlined monarchy failed to take into account how much his children are willing to do - and may be a failed notion for that reason.

Lady Louise is a royal. She is available so to speak but my perspective on that is that she is the product of a very privileged royal bubble. How much empathy and sympathy could she have for ordinary folks going through trying times or for those who have known nothing else. My answer. Zilch. So, have her leave the nest when old enough, work in the private sector for awhile. Join William and Harry on some on their "street visits" locally and abroad and let her see real life up close and personal. And then do a lot of introspection,(a requirement needed for people who want to effectively help the world.) As it was/is, her public contact thus far has seemed like one of total reprehension towards (and shock at being asked to "mingle" with) the common folk. No fault of her own. She knows nothing else at this point, even if her mother might. And I don't chalk it up to youth either but more associated with points already made. And, unless a major miracle occurs (and I do believe in miracles), Beatrice and Eugenie are out of the "being 'royally' effective" realm of existence also, particularly Beatrice. Again, no fault of their own.

Speaking of appeal factor, the main reason William and Harry (and thus Kate) have it is bc of who their parents (namely their mother) are. Without that background, I don't think there is much of an appeal factor there. Also, the younger generation in UK (majority, not all) are not interested in the monarchy. They have other concerns and distractions. So who exactly are William Harry and Kate appealing to?

Actually, she is older. I was thinking of Lady Amelia, not the little girl who had eye surgery. Sorry about that. She is 19 and already a party girl. I think of her when I think of Beatrice and Eugenie for some reason and, sadly, service to the crown seems to currently be the last thing on her mind. And she has such a powerful platform should she choose to use it for good things. (sorry little Lady Louise, certainly no offense. And when the time comes for you to go on your own don't follow your cousin Amelia. :) )

Surfer girl - you usually write thoughtful comments and I enjoy reading them. So I was taken aback when you made these comments about a 14 year old girl.

I understand now that you had her mistaken for Lady Amelia - however Lady Amelia is not one of the Queen's grandchildren. Her grandfather is a cousin to the Queen. Therefore, she is quite far down the line from the crown and really is not expected to be in service to the crown. Family members that far down the line may have a title like Lady but they are not part of the immediate royal family. So I'm wondering why you think she in particular should be service to the crown (as you say)?

In that family, only the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra are working royals. None of their many descendants are. The same is true of the Gloucesters. Only the Duke and Duchess perform royal duties. When the Queen came to the throne, in her immediate family there were her husband, her grieving mother, and twenty- one year old Princess Margaret, who at the time seemed somewhat likely to leave the royal system via marriage. The Queen's uncle and two aunts by marriage were still active. For the future, she would need the assistance of her cousins. Charles will have his wife, his sons and their wives, and presumably his siblings. One would think William would need his first cousins, but Harry's spin on charities reflects the plan for a streamlined firm to include only the immediate family. In any case, Princess Anne's children have no royal titles and pursue active careers, Prince Andrew's daughters have been largely excluded, and Prince Edward's young children go by non-royal titles. If William is not to have the assistance of his first cousins, there will not be active royals among his third cousins, such as Lady Amelia.

Anon @ 00:39. The topic was young ones who can be up and coming and contribute to the monarchy. Didn't realize she was far down the line. (Although the Duke of Kent, her grandfather is still very close to the Queen and Phillip in every way so Amelia still has clout.) She appears from time to time on the balcony at Buckingham Palace so she is not out of the royal radar. Seemingly she can have the attention of the Queen (and her support) whenever she would choose to. She's actually now 21 or so, and, if available, I am am sure the Queen could very readily find some Royal things for her to help out with. She obviously has some presence and she is young and strong. Still think she could do a lot for the monarchy if she had the unction to do so. And I hope she eventually will. As for little Louise, I got the names wrong (not the first time that's ever happened). I certainly wasn't picking on children. Not my heart. Not my style. :)

SG I think it's quite inappropriate to pick on a young woman who is clearly not receiving any direct benefits whatsoever from the monarchy and then shred her to pieces because according to you she does not have the "unction" to do the royal thing. Why should she? She is not answerable to anyone and you have no right to dictate her life choices any more than I have to dictate yours ! I am sorry that you don't seem to see the irony here. Kate gets millions to spend on her clothes and lifestyle, and she still seems to have a number of women followers (rapidly shrinking number thankfully) who claim that she does not owe anybody anything. KATE IS SUPPORTED BY THE PUBLIC and you don't demand anything from HER? Yet this young barely adult person is getting ripped to pieces on a completely unrelated blog because she has the gumption to follow her own desires. Are you serious?Amelia is a private citizen. She is not buying $300K worth of outfits every year and owes NOTHING to the public. The same way YOU don't anything to us. Or I owe to you. Why are you picking on her? I don't get it. The direct beneficiaries of millions of GBP from the UK public are the Queen's children and grandchildren. They have a very lavish lifestyle in exchange of the benefits of being part of the royal family. The Duke of Kent gets an allowance which his children do not partake in. They are on their own, and so is Amelia. She is trying to hustle her own way through. I find it incredibly unkind to use such strong words to pull her into a discussion which should not be about her. I hope you will look into your heart and try to understand why you seem to have a lot of compassion for Kate and Meghan Markle and none for ordinary people like Louis and Amelia. There seems to be a double standard here.

I think Surfer Girl just muddled Amelia with Louise - it does get complicated outside the immediate family.

Amelia is a society girl won't have any role in royal life, neither did her parents. She did recently make an unwise comment on social media that was viewed as political (it's hard to express how important it is for royals not to be involved in anything remotely political) and it was taken down.

Louise, the daughter of Sophie who has crafted an excellent royal role is another matter. She has great poise and I do think she might be an asset in the future - since age wise, she would fill in a gap. Frankly, I would rather see this than have her turn into party girls like Beatrice and Eugenie.

I also think the public that still cares about a royal family wants royals to be seen - and since William and Harry are making it clear they aren't going to take on a wide range of public appearances - I think the idea of a streamlined monarchy as Charles envisioned it is going to have difficulties.

The queen is quite close to Edward's children - and she might be able to impart some of her wisdom to Louise. Unfortunately, George and Charlotte are too young for that but Louise could b a wise older cousin to them in the future.

Surfer girl - Amelia is very far down the line to take on royal duties. It would be very random if she did. She doesn't receive public funds like William Kate and Harry do. Her parents are private citizens. She's also not the first 21 year old to party. You might recall William and Kate clubbing very often well into their mid 20s. You have such a double standard there.

Bottom line - since she doesn't receive public funds, she won't be and is not obligated to perform royal duties.

Long before Amelia, one would think of Lady Helen Taylor and Lady Gariella Windsor as women who have the maturity and presence for royal work. But neither they nor their parents are involved in it, of course. I don't understand why Lady Amelia should be considered eligible for royal assignments.

I do not have a horse in this race, but this conversation is very very odd. I actually had no problem with any of the original statements, maybe something had been deleted before I read, but the rest of the conversation is very very odd to me.

Patricia I. It can be confusing at times, yeh? If you start studying the British nobility and aristocracy (historically and contemporarily) as a whole and all their connections, ranks, etc., it can be a bit much.

So pleased that KP have released a photo of a "behind the scenes " event involving Kate there have been many photos released of similar types of events involving William.It would appear that at last Kate is taking a more professional approach to her charity work with hosting this forum on Maternal Mental Health following on from the very good speech she made a few months ago at Best Beginnings. Being a mother herself and by her own admission suffered lack of confidence and other emotions with I suspect particularly George & not having had easy pregnancies she is an ideal person to promote the wellbeing of mothers.I think the appointment of Catherine Quinn was much needed to help Kate move on. I must admit I did feel that I felt that Catherine Quinn is a little "high powered" to accompany Kate on engagements like the LTA event a Personal Assistant is all that is needed for that type of event where Kate really doesn't need anyone but whether that is acceptable practice I wouldn't know.Speaking of the tennis event the delight on the officials faces when they greeted Kate showed just how pleased they were to have a genuine tennis enthusiast as there Patron.At the moment both she & William are undertaking only solo engagements I hope there will be a joint away day engagement soon I enjoy seeing them together at that type of engagement more than the Royal engagements.

I agree that Ms Quinn will take a different approach to that of Rebecca Deacon. She might accompany Kate on a few engagements like that to get a feel for it, but I won’t be surprised if a junior PA gets appointed to carry flowers etc while Ms Quinn stay in the office. It is also worth noting that after the wedding it was important that Kate had somebody she trust as support. So it made complete sense for Rebecca to accopany her, but she is no longer a stranger to these engagements so a junior assistant might do. Of cause this is complete speculation on my side. Time will tell.

This makes perfect sense to me. Kate is not as needy as she was at one time. I just can’t imagine Prince Charles becoming King and taking on even more duties at his age. And I actually support the York sisters and others becoming full time royals, it seems like there is more than enough work for all of them actually, that way if they share more of the duties, they can have private quality family time. I think it’s a shame that the queen didn’t get to spend more time with her children when she was a young mother, sorry but I believe that duty should never come before innocent children.

Ms. Quinn's history reflects an interest in young people and education. I suspect she may relish the chance to go about with Kate to interesting events and projects. She has a little smile that makes me think she will enjoy all of this activity.

Today I read a report of some harsh criticism of Kate from her Kensington MP. I hope his biting opinions are not widely shared by his constituents.

I believe that was last September and I wouldn't take Emma Coad's views alone too strongly, her view of the BBC is laughable - they are hardly friends to royalty. But she's part of a shift in Labour that is known to be republican minded. Whilst Corbyn has said he won't touch the monarchy at the moment - looking at what he says versus what he does with other very serious areas, if I were a royal I would not be feeling too comfortable. As I discussed below, I would give up on a dubious new paradigm and get out there and work for the nation as hard as possible.

As I've heard, all Kate's away days in November has been canceled (which makes very much sense since it would cost alot of money for the places if they had to cancel last minute). So I think it will take a while sadly for a joint trip.

Speaking of William, he really is working alot! (Royally speaking ofc!) Very nice to see! I have never understood the workshy discussions with him. Royal job shy, maybe? But this man has studied and worked while doing royal engagements so I have never doubted that he could have a "full" royal schedule.

I have seen William out more - which is a very good thing. I respectfully disagree people aren't interested in the old style of monarchy. Republicans try to trivialise the role as they do all things royal, but if William and Kate especially (that interest in women) were out there all the time, most people who like a royal family would be delighted, and there wouldn't be all this controversy. This so-called new design of theirs is not attracting people - just making them irrelevant.

Rebecca, from what I understand, I think it was because for so long after the wedding William and Kate weren't taking on hardly any royal duties, at least not nearly as many as the rest of the working royals. I can understand that viewpoint, because, whatever their reasons were, it did come off rather badly, especially after the all the energy and bustle the royal wedding generated for the monarchy. As for people calling William out for being lazy in general, I can't speak to, since he's always been working in some capacity, so I'm with you there, but I can see how he's seemed reluctant to take on more royal duties. I believe because of that, there are those who are skeptical that that same attitude would carry over into being "full time."

Not odd at all Julia. Visits like those cost ALOT for the places they visit so if there is a palatable risk that it will be canceled it's way kinder to cancel it long before to save money than call on the morning. I assume awaydays that William is on is still on as he can just do it himself and she tag along if she really feels she can, but the ones on her own is probably canceled and rescheduled for a time in the future. (Also, them being "canceled" is not official news so everyone have to weigh themselves if they belive it, but I've heard it from a person who seems to have reliable sources in the area.)

I don't think lazy is quite the word although work-shy could certainly apply to Kate. It is more the disinterest in his future role - one of the most important in the world and one which is state-subsidised.

I can understand he and Harry have ambiguous feelings but it is wise not to express those feelings in public or people might think they don't wish to trouble you.

I didn't mean it's odd they might be cancelled as necessary, but odd we haven't heard anything - Charlotte still has them posted and there haven't been any announcements that I've seen - but sounds like there's another source - quite possible.

I don't know whether Catherine Quinn will continue going out with Kate or delegate but certainly at the beginning she would wish to so that she understands how things work. The only way to do that is to go out and see.

Oh, the ones announced have not been cancelled, they are not out of town trips I don't think. I mean the stuff we don't hear of because they're not announced but were still planned might have been cancelled, but we obviously don't know about them :P

Kate looks great today; very healthy. Hopefully the worst is behind her. I suspect these types of engagements have been going on all along, but publicizing them will give a truer picture of Kate's calendar.

I don't have much time at the moment - but I'm torn between hope and discouragement.Delighted to see an uptick of engagements for Kate - that's very positive.There is a fine old saying - if it's not broken - don't fix it. Some time back Sophie commented that she had thought she should perhaps get more deeply involved with her charities and they said she could do more good visiting and bringing attention to their cause. I don't believe this is wrong - royals are at their best as generalists - representing the entirety of their nation and a multitude of causes. Yes, this means they have to get out there and work - not just much fine talk - and it does mean there are boring visits bringing cheer to people with their little roles in life, people being given awards, people who volunteer, people in need, a few causes will only speak to a view - even this mental health scheme is not going to speak to everyone - there are so many other people.An example of something only royals can do was William's visit to Merseyside - that joy he brought to those people connect to others he didn't meet - it speaks of caring.

Foundations are for corporations and the very rich - something that royals should never become to close to or there is not point in having royals. Bringing charities together doesn't take royal involvement - I'm sure everyone will be polite to Kate - and it's not a bad thing as one activity of hers - at this point we give credit for anything she does - and then will go back and do what they do. Royals never have the depth of knowledge of skilled charity works who are in the trenches - William, Kate and Harry have shown that - there speeches whilst extremely well meaning are filled with generalities. In the meantime, there are parts of the nation that have had no visit from any of them.Royals in other country, Sweden, Denmark, Luxembourg, Belgium, Spain, as troubled as it is, and the Netherlands all have royals with more connection to their people and nations than the trio - as I will call them. Those monarchies are working as they should, represented by a younger generation of royals.There are thousands of school children Harry could be meeting at home. What on earth is he doing in Chicago getting dangerously near to politics. Every time you hear about him he is somewhere else. If this is Meghan's influence it's very unfortunate but I prefer to hope if they marry, she will try to lean something of her new nation and keep Harry more grounded.As for Kate - anything she does is good but a meeting like this has very little impact on the country - it goes virtually unnoticed where a visit from her brings a huge amount of attention to causes and an enormous amount of cheer. I'm an old woman - and if I saw a lot of interest from the young in this new royal vision Harry seems to be promoting and which we have heard from from William, I might put my feelings down to age. But what I see instead is a drifting away of interest in royalty. The ones out there are old and the others are talking, not acting. I hope that changes before it's too late for George and his future.

I get what you mean, but the royals inviting does bring in charities in a way others can't. I know people that say that the royals inviting these charities to meet is invaluable since it gets people in a room that would otherwise not be there and their names opens alot of doors where charities cannot otherwise get a foot in. So I think just the act of the royals bringing the charities together to do what they do best is an extremely valuable role for th emodern royas!

It may but he needs urgently to stay away from political figures other than visits authorised by the foreign office.

I recall once reading about a man who circled the globe in a plane - he got in a storm he couldn't go through and had to back out of it. I've considered that a very fine analogy ever since - and that's what Harry needs to do - back away.

Royal stay out of politics for a reason and at the present time when the shadow government has strong republican leanings and a difficult negotiation is going on - it is imperative that they be scrupulously careful.

From where you are experiencing the times in your country, I want to be considerate. From where I experienced the interview including the representatives’ from several countries which Harry had an audience, the opinion can be different. His portion of the interview could have as well been presented by well-meaning institutions, academia, international organizations and so forth. It is unfortunately too restrictive to refrain from representation within an international audience by reason of a politician’s name association.

I can't believe it! With a third baby on the way, William just spoke about curbing population growth - yes, I know he imagines he is speaking about other nations but it's a case of do as I say don't do as I do. The man sometimes seems clueless - as if he truly thinks he and Kate inhabit a space with special exemptions in the universe.

It might be helpful to actually read what he said instead of all the headlines. The press deliberately misled the public on it.

He didn't say anything about curbing population growth. He talked about how population growth will impact animal conservation.

Here's the link to the speech at Royal.Uk: https://www.royal.uk/duke-cambridge-gives-speech-tusk-trust-ball

This is the offending statement that has been misreported: "In my lifetime we have seen global wildlife populations decline by over half. Africa’s rapidly growing human population is predicted to more than double by 2050 – a staggering increase of three and a half million people per month. There is no question that this increase puts wildlife and habitat under enormous pressure. Urbanisation, infrastructure development, cultivation – all good things in themselves, but they will have a terrible impact unless we begin to plan and to take measures now. On human populations alone, over-grazing and poor water supplies could have a catastrophic effect unless we start to think about how to mitigate these challenges."

But they do Julia. That is exactly what monarchy is - don't you think? Obviously I don't think it was a great thing to say but I am not at all surprised that he should believe that he is subject to a different set of rules and expectations.

If PW takes it a step further to have their foundation work with people like MS’ Bill Gates addressing some of Africa’s problems with real and genuine solution, his remark can be taken as a concern especially as someone who had expressed for his liking of Africa. If he is in a position of his family planning to have more children because it is affordable/ empowers his family institution, and yet he is concerned for accelerating world population, it all depends how much, and in what ways he will support in minimizing Africa’s problems. Otherwise, editors of his speech could have been more careful especially while his wife is pregnant with a third child. It is the contradiction of his deer hunting, and his impassioned speech for Africa’s animal conservation which is questionable.

That remark was introduced in the context of Africa and specifically, the relationship between population growth and the destruction of habitats and resources for endangered species. If the critics of this statement had been seriously concerned, information concerning the relative population growth versus resources and species endangerment between Africa and UK would have been explored. It would have more accurately put the issue in context. It was obviously a hook on which to hang their various royal grievances.

I think William was brave to make such a statement, aware-I have no doubt-that some would take the opportunity to relate it to his wife's pregnancy. He has made good his promise to increase royal duties. What might we seize upon to criticise him for now? I am disappointed. Very predictable behavior for some of the royal Twitter flock.

Just read Anon 15's comment. I so often agree with you; however, not in respect to the deer-hunting reference. The game wardens of private herds have to cull the population of deer to match it to available resources. Sometimes others do the work. It must be done. In any event, I think comparing this to the exotic animal and animal parts trade whereby a baby elephant or gorilla must watch his parent slaughtered is totally different from the carefully mapped-out decrease in size of herds. Females with young are avoided. I am not even discussing the illegal, criminal, black-market aspect involved in the Africa situation.What really disturbs me is people who routinely shop at the local supermarket for prime beef cuts criticizing the culling process. As though we are absolved of the killing if we ourselves don't hold the gun---which, I will add, is a much less painful way of dispatching an animal than some other commercial methods.

I do see it as hypocrisy - much as in the same way I think William and Harry compromise their environmental position by hunting.

The article I read was this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/02/prince-william-warns-many-people-world/ And yes I did read the entire article.

Whilst his main focus was Africa, William is speaking of general overpopulation - and that is perhaps not wise at a time your wife is pregnant with a third child in a country that has made a benefits cap involving third children. If you want to limit the world population to protect animals, you start at home, or you don't talk about it - restricting yourself to speaking of encroachment or habitat. Otherwise you will be justifiably be accused of hypocrisy and compromise your message.

Likewise hunting wild pigs may actually benefit the environment but again it clouds the issue, especially when you are speaking of nations where hunting and poaching may be a life-and-death economic issue.

It's much like these celebrities who speak of the environment and then fly in private jets - one jet will make little difference but again it's a do as I say but because I'm rich, I'm able to do as I like.

I echoed the typical question the general public had been asking every time PW remarks regarding endangered animals conservation. Hunting obviously is not necessarily exclusive to BRF, although in their case it seems to be an enjoyable sport. It is a very involved subject between necessity, sport, echo system, and also purposeful reduction for a reason, like you said. It had been there for necessity and applied in many parts of the world as a source of survival for centuries. The African Safari animals obviously are not for human food consumption although they are good business for safari owning companies which many of them are outside of Africa as well as there. It is another complex subject. In the meantime, because so many times PW had been labeled as a hypocrite as a hunter while a conservationist, his office may need to communicate the justification of hunting purposefully as opposed to conservation of “precious” / “endangered” animals. Endangered animals conservation is recognized by the UN. Africa and other countries are not necessarily free of corruption in politics and money dealings. In other words, there is also an economic competition, one done legally and the other illegally.

Julia, I agree with you. It was rather hypocritical of William to speak about a growing population when he is expecting his 3rd baby. I take serious offence to the way his speech was worded, purporting to pass the buck on to Africa's population as growing rapidly is, in my opinion, ignorant in fact and devoid of global awareness.

China and India, 2 Asian countries have already surpassed the 1 billion mark. Did he mention them? Nope. The USA with their 500 million people and their withdrawal from the Paris agreement, did he mention how that would affect conservation of wildlife? Nope.

I find it hilarious that people like William, a million miles away attends a glamorous black tie dinner and delivers such a poor speech about wildlife. They go on "Safari" once and suddenly they're passionate about wildlife? I am South African, I live in a place where rhino and elephant poaching is a reality. I have seen dead rhino and I have seen elephants with their tusks cut off to spare their lives, an elephant once put her trunk right inside my car, I drove next to a lion whose face once right on my window, nobody is more passionate about the wildlife than the people of Africa. Poachers come from around the world to harm them, not Africans. There is a great deal of respect held for these creatures by African people, aware of their beauty and splendor and the tourism they bring to various African countries. The deforestation of their habitat is being caused by international conglomerates, not Africans. Perhaps direct your focus to them if you are so concerned about conservation, Prince William, and please in future, don't generalise your statements so poorly. You are doing us Africans a huge dis-service by speaking of Africa so vaguely and incorrectly.

Very well put, Avee - you express my concerns about William and this important cause beautifully - there are so many elements to it and to population issues.

just saw a tragic photo of a US hunter killing a snow leopard. Most of the demand that leads to the poaching is from abroad.

Yes, I know culling is necessary for certain animal populations, yes, shooting is part of the economic basis of the British countryside, although the sheer number of pheasants killed in a royal shoot often shocks me, even though they hopefully are used for food. (And I confess, I love pheasant.)

But anyone speaking in public of concerns, especially in other continents and nations had best have their own credentials as clean as possible or risk arrogance. William has not.

Let me just say this:William is NOT (yet) the CEO of this "firm". In the corporate world he would be a management trainee who has just finished his trainee program and gets his first projects assigned, maybe a post as "Assistant to Managing Director". If his boss was wise, he would give him the opportunity to get involved in a project he´s really excited and passionate about. Whith his project(s) he will most probably have to delve into new markets/new products/new target groups. Whether or not this is successful in its outcome - he will learn from his mistakes as well as his success. That´s how it is done in big "firms". I can see William doing the same at the moment.The respective "younger" royals in the above mentioned countries (Sweden, Denmark, etc) are either Crown Prince/Crown Princess or King/Queen or Hereditary Grand Duke/Duchess, so either "CEO" or "next in line" - not second in line, i.e. management level 2 (Corporate hierarchy: Board of directors - management level 1 (usually "Head of"´s like "Head of Finance", "Head of Sales", etc) - management level 2 ("Sales manager" etc)). William, being at "level 2" at the moment, will not have the same tasks as "level 1 - PoW" or "Board of Directors/CEO - the Queen". Managers of companies often visit conferences where they meet other managers in order to learn from each other (best practice concept) and exchange information and experience. Even CEO´s do so (see World Economic Forum each year in Davos/Switzerland). That´s what Harry did when he visited the Obama foundation summit. A round table discussion in order to find out what resources are already available and what would be additionally needed to tackle a new aspect of the main focus "Mental Health" is a very sound and useful thing to do - in fact very professional, efficient and target-orientated. We are living in the year 2017 - in a globalized world.As we need leaders who acknowledge this, we need young royals who do so as well. A professional approach does not hurt either. And some "training time" on selected subjects is a good preparation for things to come. You can neither serve your country nor your people very well in today´s world if you don´t know how to see "the bigger picture". And I can see quite a few "hand-shaking" and "people-meeting" engagements, too, in the coverage of the "younger royals´" engagements. So nothing to worry about.Please remember what happened nearly 100 years ago: those monarchies survived WWI which were able to adapt to new and radically changing times. Many thought back then that broadcasting a royal wedding via the new medium called film (as George V was wise enough to do with the Duke of York´s, later King George VI, wedding in 1923) was almost sacrilegious - but George V realized that the times of royal weddings as private affairs behind closed doors were over (for the first time, for example, Westminster Abbey was chosen and there was a wedding "procession" from and to the palace, so that people could "take part" in the celebration). He knew people would like it - "good publicity" in corporate language...., very new at the time, very modern....The British Monarchy is still here...so his approach can´t have been that bad...

There have been stories in the U.S press that Charles has some concerns about being overshadowed by the immense popularity of the younger royals. Might such concerns also influence the activities and working life of the younger royals?

A recent biography of Prince Charles (by Sally Bedell Smith) describes in great detail Prince Charles' creation of many, many foundations, trusts and profit making enterprises. Quite admirable really, the enormous variety of good works PC is involved in as he awaits his ascension to the throne.

Perhaps William and Harry are now also trying to find their own roles in a changing world.

Hello, Jean from Lancs - haven´t seen you commenting here for a while!So thanks for giving that piece of information about Princess Patricia. My source was "Royal weddings on film" a documentary about Royal weddings in Britain. The commentator said that the then Duke of York was "the first son of a King to marry at Westminter Abbey since 1382". My apologies for not stating that more accurately....

You write very well Eve but one must consider the survival of the firm or corporation. The CEO is very aged, and doing far less - her partner is retired.The presumed successor isn't a popular man and his partner is even less popular. Their recent tour of Malaysia went barely noticed at home. The balance of the firm is over fifty - there are few members and at least one is very unpopular.

This is a firm who must appeal to all ages to survive, it must appeal to a core support of traditional royalists, to people who let it run in the background but who will rise up if they aren't happy, to recent immigrants, to young people, many of whom are questioning if such a corporation is even necessary and to older people who remain the core support - just look at what happened to May when she forgot that. It's fine to talk of who is next compared to other countries but some of those other countries also had abdications to help the survival of the firm. No company survives on the assumption people will accept a hierarchy. Yes, the next up may want attention focused on him but egos can't be allowed to destroy an institution.

This is a firm who desperately, imperatively, needs active younger members deeply involved at home. Yes, certainly there can be changes in ways of doing things but the queen proceeded doing this very gradually - not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. At this point, many, including me, believe William and Harry are trying to get a new scheme to get them out of work they find tiresome and unfulfilling. But the people they meet wouldn't agree - and drawing too close to how the foundations of rich function destroys the uniqueness of royalty.

Harry may speak of little value in visiting a charity a year but those charities still need patrons. Like when any firm starts to be unavailable - they'll look for outside sources and are already doing so - celebrities are taking over traditional royal roles. Those charities don't go away just because William and Harry can't trouble to visit and they may not wish to be consolidated. William and Harry aren't young men in most people's eyes who need to learn their role. They chose to squander time and in William's case much good will that followed his marriage. Any good corporate leader will tell you the time to solidify your position is when you're at the top - not to wait until you're weakened.

I think at this point the urgent thing for William and Harry is to become involved with every part of their nation and a wide range of causes for all ages - to secure their older base and try to draw back younger ones or the problems will worsen.

I think that Julia has made excellent comments that don't need repeating. I have been speaking with my many friends in the UK, and they are generally not in the least interested in the monarchy in general. They sort of tolerated it and were mildly interested in the Queen, but didn't care about the rest of it. But over the past year I have heard much more resentment and anger from them about the monarchy as an institution than I have ever heard in the past. Not just one or two of them, but everyone I visited with last year seemed to be a lot more negative about the monarchy than I have ever heard them be. A lot of this came about in the context of the Queen's jubilee celebrations which apparently a number of people found unnecessary and over the top. I don't know about rationalizing and analyzing and justifying.. we can do that till we are blue in the face. And honestly this is not a profit driven corporation, so I am not sure of the analogy. It is an institution supported by the taxes and goodwill of the people. The bottomline is that the monarchy is an inequitable institution. It's going to take a lot to get away with preserving it and taking more and more from the nation's coffers. The sooner William and Harry realize that, the better it will be for them. You can't hoodwink an increasingly unhappy public forever. They will need to earn their keep.

Harry recently was asked whether he had been aware of his role and responsibility from early on. This is what he said:

“No, I don’t think I understood it. I think what happened to my mum probably put me a step back, thinking, well, how could someone who did so much for the world and did so much for everybody else could be treated like that by a certain institution? "

I am pretty amazed that he would be so candid on what happened to his mother, but wow I have to say that he said it out loud. Good for him. I bet this is therapeutic for him and William. And after this, I am even more certain that the rift between Charles and his sons is real. I am curious about one thing - do the princes hold the monarchy, as in the Queen more responsible for the destruction of Diana's reputation at all ? Did it have a role ? What do you all think?I am afraid I just don't know.

Rosman, thanks for bringing this up! I remember feeling perplexed when I saw them so jolly welcoming Camilla into the fold not so long after Diana's Death!? I thought, wow, I couldn't have been so jovial after my Father & This Woman had been so involved in bringing pain to my Mum!? So it seems to me now, that as they are becoming more in tune with emotions & trauma long buried, that it is definitely effecting their relationships with C&C! I still to this day don't know what I think about the part HM & PP played in all of this..... I'm sure they didn't make it a safe place for W&H to feel they could open up & sort out their baggage after Diana Died.... It's a strange case! But C&C..... to me That's an Obvious Slam Dunk! Not that you have to "Ice" people out forever, but there is a natural course in coming to terms with long buried trauma & grief! Just my opinion!BeccaUSA

This just proves that a person can do all the charity work they want, but that doesn’t mean we will love them anymore, they must show their true self to the world, after all they are worldly figures. I am sure Sophie is doing an enormous amount of Charity work, but we really do not know her or her children, therefore how can we Fall in love with her?

Trust me George and Charlotte are obscure now and they will be when they are 25, I can’t imagine ever seeing pictures of them at a log flume or at Disney World or playing on vacation as we have seen William and Harry.

I do think there was always doubts about Camilla for William and Harry but they did their best to support their father in a difficult and public situation. But this last year, I think the double biographies of Charles and Camilla and what was said there about Diana put the men on the defensive about their mother - which was extremely unwise. I don't know that a rift has grown but I believe it has become more open - and remember these biographies were known about well before they were published. You can push people too far and everyone ends up damaged.

That quote from PH, is better off in its entirety of the interview. It is a very interesting interview which really gives a glimpse into their foundation including who is Harry. The interviewer was assertive and he responded to her questions with spontaneity. For me personally, this is the first time I came to be more familiar with him and his thoughts. He also happened to take a guest from one of the UK nonprofit org. recipient (interesting story). His presence and interview at OF summit in Chicago communicated his outlook, well presented independent of politics.

Did anyone catch the photos of one year old Prince Jigme of Bhutan on tour in India with his parents? Prince George and Princess Charlotte are adorable but this little one is beyond cute imo. I don't know how they were able to get him to behave so well.

He seems to have taken after the solemn aura of his parent’s traditional persona. His “praying hands symbol” at least commonly understood to be (may be a form of greeting for his culture) complemented it all. He is obviously very cute, and somewhat reserved and serious for a child of that age. He was very interestingly different including how his adorable traditional costume suited him.

I am wondering if he just has a thoughtful/watchful temperament or he is being raised to be that way Probably a combination of both. Anon 15, I think he wears his traditional garb well too and, Rosman, I agree. Queen Jetsun Pema is a great beauty, The boy has outstanding genes.

I feel like seeing the children more would be a bonus for the public, William and Harry are very popular for many reasons, but think if Diana had kept them hid away as much as George and Charlotte are, no way that would be as popular or desired as they are now, this popularity didn’t just start yesterday, it’s all because of how Diana raised them to get out and about, and we were allowed in. I think William is wrong in blaming the media for his very public upbringing, even if Diana and Charles had had a healthy marriage, William and Harry would still be marvelously followed. Mark my word on it George and Charlotte will never be as popular as William and Harry, we already have witnessed this. I am not sure William realizes this, he is trying to meet all the same milestones like the picture of George’s first day at school, but where it’s different is that Diana had a personality and she shared it with the world. It makes me sad that William and Kate aren’t confident in their ability to charm us and are so afraid to let their true selves shine, it is very noticeable that they keep themselves very much behind a wall and we are all too aware of their barriers, where Diana had none, what they don’t realize is that we fell in love with them years ago and because we live William we will naturally love his wife because we see his love for her, they should be more open to us for that reason and let us in a bit. We all want to fall in love with them so bad but are continually held back, therefore we do embrace their efforts wholeheartedly. We will not see the repercussions of this until their children are grown, because we are being held back so hard, we will not have such a great interest in what they do. William and Harry only think their mom was loved because of her charity but we actually fell in love with her way before that. They think only doing charity will warrant the same type of affection for them but it will not, they will have to give us more.

Indigoisle, you say that "we fell in love with them years ago".At the same time you say "they will HAVE TO give us more".I ask you: Is that LOVE? If we love someone - does that mean that person now owes us?Did any of them ask for our love - and "therefore" owes us?

Indigoisle, you make excellent sense in what you say. I can well understand the desire to protect one's children. However, since George, Charlotte and baby #3 are very close to the throne, they will be required to serve a public life in so many ways. As you say, if we are allowed to watch the children grow up, then we will bond with them and they will learn their role early. I do comprehend William's and Kate's quest to function like a "normal" family. But the reality is, they are not a normal family.

It's not love - it's duty - and part of the monarchy. You take the benefits, you accept the burdens - one that combines both is that it is an inherited position so there is naturally an interest in the children. Other countries are managing this without signs of harm and well adjusted young people - it's time more was done here.

I do not blame them for keeping private because of the threats against their family. But I remember seeing Images of Diana heading out to her local gym and such. I just think if for example we saw them out as a family at the local market or walking in the park, it would be nice. What I meant is that we fell in love with Diana before all her charity work, it wasn’t the charity work that won us over although it was a very nice thing she did, it was her ability to be herself no matter where she was, we saw the real her at times. With Kate we don’t even really know what her voice sounds like except in modulated speeches, it is such a shame really, because we really want to fall in love with her also. They are raising George and Charlotte to be very private, therefore they will most likely be private adults also this is not a bad thing it’s just when they are their parents age I don’t think people will have as much interest in them simply because of how their being raised. William and Harry are more comfortable sharing themselves, especially Harry but they have been used to this all along. Think about the precious video of them as toddlers with their parents playing on the piano, we’ve never been allowed to see such private moments with George and Charlotte.

Threats are terrible of course but are also nothing new. Elizabeth and Margaret were seen during the war - although they were kept at Windsor - and 'the children won't leave without the queen, the queen without the king and the king will never leave' (paraphrased) was of enormous cheer to families who faced death daily during the Blitz. Likewise, during the Troubles, even with the death of Lord Mountbatten, the royals didn't hide away.

Ordinary people today face most of the danger from terrorism - it has come very close to home for some of us, and the royals must lead by example.

I agree with you about Diana - and Kate. Tim Graham did wonders with photographing the Wales' and several other photographers, some of which were also part of the pool, did fine studies.

When we do see George, he often seems shy and overwhelmed. My favourite photos of him have been rare spontaneous glimpses, him rolling on a hill at polo and laughing out the palace window at the first Trooping. We see the joy in him, the lively little boy there. That's never quite captured in staged shoots, although that last portrait of him came closer.

Speaking as someone who as a Canadian still has ties to the Commonwealth, I have been thinking a lot these past couple of weeks about my own perspective on W, K & H. I agree with what Eve said in a way. As a non-Brit, the trio owe me zilch. They don’t have to entertain me because it is not my country, I don’t pay taxes. Still with all the ugliness coming out of Hollywood and reality TV, I choose following W & K as a much nicer pastime. I am rooting for them to continue to have a solid, happy marriage. Because I am a sucker for fairytales.

As far as Diana goes, she really didn’t trot the boys out THAT often when they were G & C’s age.

I agree with those who say that people accomplish a lot in round tables and board meetings. And I also agree with whoever wrote about the difference in stature with the European Royals (on the throne or next in line unlike William). And William has been out there several times a week meeting and greeting. It seems like Kate is stepping up her appearances and that will be good to read about in Charlotte’s excellent blog. That is all I expect.

I agree with you in that it’s a very nice alternative to the Hollywood crowd, they do seem to possess morals at least and they certainly carry themselves well in public. I pretty much have lost any respect for the Hollywood crowd, they are a pretty rotten bunch.

I go back and forth on the issue of George and Charlotte being more visible. I work with middle/high school students and some of them are really uncomfortable with the amount of closure they've received at the hands of their parents on social media. They have no control over the fact that people they don't know or like know way more about the kids than they have chosen to share. I am sure W/H have times and events in their lives that they wish were private and not blasted across the news or trotted out repeatedly.

However, assuming the monarchy remains in place, George will be king some day. As someone pointed out above, even just for the history books, there really should be more available about George and Charlotte. Even just a few random photos released or an intentional 'Mom/Dad and child day at a public place' like the Disney visit which resulted in some very well used pics.

I also agree with Jo in Az. I don't think the boys were really displayed that much as young kids. I think over the years of biographies, documentaries, anniversaries and birthdays, a number of pics have been released. I just read an article '25 Unseen Photos of Diana at Home'-except they really aren't candid, unseen photos. She wears the same 4 outfits. I think they were outtakes from things like Christmas card and family photo shoots. Yes, she is at home, playing with the boys, but they really aren't candid, unseen photos like on my walls. They were taken with the intention of being seen and just were not chosen at the time.

Katie, I don't think George will be king some day. Not because of anything W & K do or don't do. Simply because by the time George is old enough to BE king (assuming William has the typical Windsor lifespan), the world will have changed to a point where we won't recognize it (well, I won't be around but I may just write on my headstone "I told you so....")

Jo, who is about to go to my dd's to celebrate my elder grandson's 12th birthday. Heavens, I have four grandchildren from my lone offspring, how embarrassed am I!! And I wouldn't want to have missed out on one of them. They and their generation will hopefully ensure that I am looked after in my old age.

Charlotte. Any idea why William is missing the engagement with the royal family on the 11th. It seems odd he would. But again he missed a very important one when he went off partying with his buddies earlier this year. Maybe he is off again with his buddies. Will he be there on the 12 with his wife and the family.

Both William and Harry are attending rugby tests on Saturday, William in Cardiff and Harry at Twickenham. I remember attending the Remembrance Day test match at Twikenham a few years ago. I went for the rugby, never expecting it to be such a moving experience.

Yes, because so many other wealthy individuals are involved, this is all over our news. The Queen volunteered to pay taxes as a tradeoff when the government agreed to repair Windsor Castle after the 1992 fire. I imagine this kind of offshore investment stems from that era. How unfortunate for the Queen at her age to have to face the fallout from news of such investments. I wonder how the Duchy of Cornwall invests its assets and income.

Investing nowadays is a real minefield if you have any social conscience. As my dh and I are both retired, we live on Social Security and money that is invested through retirement savings plans. We sat with our financial planner a couple of weeks ago and my brain spun as he reeled off all of the numbers from our rather ordinary savings. And I cringed when he named a couple of companies that the brokerage invests with. Not companies—nor countries—I am particularly happy to be dealing with. But dh doesn’t feel the same way I do and so I sit with an unquiet conscience.

We live in a totally amoral world now. It seems day after day, week after week, we are being bombarded with more “stuff” that we have no control over because we are knit so closely to things that are partially good or issues that we would drive ourselves crazy arguing over. And if I as a 65 year old woman feel this way in my little corner, I wonder how a 91 year old woman, who, as one author said, would really have preferred to live a country life with her dogs, feels.

Jo, I agree with you. The problem is: Why does a country CREATE tax havens like the Cayman Islands? It´s so easy to put the blame now on the financial advisors, managers, etc... But honestly: creating tax havens and then declare it as "immoral" or "not ok" (I am not speaking of you now, Jo, but rather governments, MPs etc) is as if you put your hubby´s No1 favourite cake in front of him and declared: It´s a really yummy cake, you know, but you´re not supposed to be eating it because it would NOT BE OK, do you hear me? And then leave him alone with it... So I guess it´s about high time we "abolish" all tax havens, otherwise we shouldn´t be surprised if they are used...

Princess Elizabeth made her prediction, "l'll live in the country with lots of horses and dogs" as a child. Of course she has that life. But someone asked her not long ago how she does all she does. She replied, "Oh, I enjoy it all!" She has always given every indication of relishing her role.

As for finances, the Queen may well be surprised by the revelations, since she by law has an arms length relationship with the Duchy of Lancaster. The Guardian, which is not heavily critical, says that 95% of the Duchy income is from land rents within the UK, and that re-imposing the rule that all its investments are there would not be a hardship. The rule was changed in he 1950s, but tax was not an issue until the 1990s, since the monarch's income was not taxed.

Whilst I don't think it's necessary for a monarch to be overly in love with the power of their role, I do think it's very important that they seem to enjoy meeting their people and being interested in and involved with their country. At times, I've felt William and Harry have seem too reluctant, giving the impression that they are bored by routine duties and find traditional royal obligations onerous.

Your comments on the finances is very well put. (Although there are times I find The Guardian quite critical.)

Comments are most welcome! Constructive discussion is always encouraged but off topic or hateful remarks will not be published.

We ask you use a name when posting (a pseudonym such as the name of a royal you like or anything you wish). If you do not wish to use the sign in options, simply select the "Name/URL" option on the drop down menu and insert your name, and if you wish the country/state you're from. You can leave the URL blank.

If there are a large number of comments, it is necessary to click the 'Load More' button at the end of the comments section to see the latest additions.

Kate's Favourites

Follow by Email

Custom Search

Follow on Social Media

Kate's Calendar

21 March - The Duchess of Cambridge will convene a symposium on the importance of early intervention to provide solid social and emotional platforms for children in their early years, helping them to become healthier and more resilient later in life.

22 March - The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will undertake engagements celebrating the Commonwealth. They will meet athletes supported by SportsAid, some of whom aim to compete in the 2022 Commonwealth Games, and help to prepare a Commonwealth Big Lunch at St Luke's Trust.

19 May - The wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle at St George's Chapel, Windsor.

12 October - The wedding of Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank at Windsor.